PURA RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO. 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Camp, Srimadhopur dt. 26.05.2012. The writ petition has been filed by defendant whereby said Court rejected the application filed by him with the prayer that Nanu Ram, the plaintiff should be recalled for putting certain new questions to him.

(2.) SHRI Ajay Gupta, learned counsel argued that the earlier counsel could not put relevant questions and after change of the counsel, the application was made. It is argued that the Court not only possess the power to recall any witness by recourse to provisions in Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but in appropriate cases, it can also invoke inherent powers under Sec. 151 CPC. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, : (2011) 11 SCC 275.

(3.) THERE is no specific provision in CPC enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination -in -chief or cross -examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross -examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the Court, the inherent power under Sec. 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the Court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code.